alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18474]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Petrotechnical Open Software Corporation

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 2, 1998, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Petrotechnical Open Software 
Corporation (``POSC'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, the following additional parties have become new non-
voting members of POSC: GlavNIVC (Ministry of Natural Resources of the 
Russian Federation), Moscow, RUSSIA; Seismic Micro-Technology Inc., 
Houston, TX; INTesa, Caracas, VENEZUELA; Hitec ASA, Stavanger, NORWAY; 
China National Petroleum Corporation, Beijing, CHINA; Intelligent 
Computer Solutions, London, UNITED KINGDOM; and Iona Technologies Ltd., 
Cambridge, MA.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Petrotechnical Open Software 
Corporation (``POSC'') intends to file additional written notification 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On January 14, 1991, petrotechnical Open Software Corporation 
(``POSC'') filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of 
the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal 
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 7, 1991 (56 FR 
5021).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 16, 
1997. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 28, 1997 (62 FR 63389).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 98-18474 Filed 7-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
# 82804004

# 82804005

# 82804008

# 82804010

# 82804011

# 82884009

# 82804001

# 82804002

# 82804003

# 82804006

# 82804007

# 82804012

# image4.emf

# image5.emf

# image6.emf

# image7.emf

# image8.emf

# image9.emf

# image1.emf

# image2.emf

# image3.emf

# image10.png

# image14.emf

# image15.emf

# image16.emf

# image17.emf

# image18.emf

# image19.emf

# image11.emf

# image12.emf

# image13.emf

# image23.emf

# image24.emf

# image25.emf

# image26.emf

# image27.emf

# image28.emf

# image20.emf

# image21.emf

# image22.emf

# image32.emf

# image33.emf

# image34.emf

# image35.emf

# image36.emf

# image37.emf

# image29.emf

# image30.emf

# image31.emf

# image41.emf

# image42.emf

# image43.emf

# image44.emf

# image45.emf

# image46.emf

# image38.emf

# image39.emf

# image40.emf

# image50.emf

# image51.emf

# image52.emf

# image53.emf

# image54.emf

# image55.emf

# image47.emf

# image48.emf

# image49.emf

# image59.emf

# image60.emf

# image61.emf

# image62.emf

# image63.emf

# image64.emf

# image56.emf

# image57.emf

# image58.emf

# image68.emf

# image69.emf

# image70.emf

# image71.emf

# image72.emf

# image73.emf

# image65.emf

# image66.emf

# image67.emf

# image77.emf

# image78.emf

# image79.emf

# image80.emf

# image81.emf

# image82.emf

# image74.emf

# image75.emf

# image76.emf

# image86.emf

# image87.emf

# image88.emf

# image89.emf

# image90.emf

# image91.emf

# image83.emf

# image84.emf

# image85.emf

# image95.emf

# image96.emf

# image97.emf

# image98.emf

# image99.emf

# image100.emf

# image92.emf

# image93.emf

# image94.emf

# image104.emf

# image105.emf

# image106.emf

# image107.emf

# image108.emf

# image109.emf

# image101.emf

# image102.emf

# image103.emf
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1625

ANGELA L. G. WEINERTH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE MARTINSVILLE CITY SCHOOL BOARD,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

ZEBEDEE TALLEY, JR.; THE MARTINSVILLE CITY COUNCIL; CITY OF 

MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA, A Municipal Corporation,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Danville. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (4:17-cv-00067-MFU)

Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 16, 2020

Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Glen Franklin Koontz, KOONTZ P.C., Berryville, Virginia, for Appellant. James A. L. 

Daniel, Martha White Medley, Khalilah A. Walters, Michael Anthony Nicholas, DANIEL, 
2

MEDLEY & KIRBY, PC, Danville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Angela L. G. Weinerth appeals the district court’s order granting the Martinsville 

City School Board summary judgment on her race and gender discrimination claims, 

brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e17 (2018), and her age discrimination claim, brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination 

in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (2018). We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. See Weinerth v. Martinsville City Sch. Bd., No. 4:17-cv-00067-MFU (W.D. 

Va. May 20, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Yes

1

Receipt Restriction requested by Item Manager 

6 

SDR sent to manager as action activity

Info copy sent to owner*

Restriction screen remarks perpetuated to SDR remarks

New SDR Action Code 4A requests disposition from manager**

7

Manager provides response to SDR -

Interim Response if investigation is ongoing

5

SDR sent to materiel owner 

2

Materiel subject to Receipt Restriction discovered during Distribution Center receipt

4

Is material owner different from materiel manager requesting the screening?

8Investigation completed -

Does suspended stock need to be returned to the manager?

15

Depot reports receipt to Manager per PMR

13

Owner prepares MRO for ship-in-place

No

Yes

3

Materiel suspended

12Manager transmits PMR to Distribution Center for directed return

11SDR Reply from Manager directs Owner to initiate return materiel using ship-in-place procedures***

and request DOCNOs to be used for credit****

9SDR Reply from Manager directs materiel be upgraded to original condition

No

* Note:  Once information copy recipient is identified on the SDR, all later transactions will also be copied to that activity

16

Manager issues credit using DOCNO provided on owner SDR reply

SDR closed -No further action required

SDR closed –Manager responsible for any further action required

10

Depot issues Completion Notice (CN) SDR to notify all parties when action completed

*** Note:  Ship-in place requires owner-prepared Materiel Release Order (MRO) to Distribution Center holding materiel with ship-to designated as same Distribution Center.  Prepositioned Materiel Receipt will ensure Center reports receipt to the correct owner

14 

Owner prepares SDR reply confirming MRO sent and providing DOCNOs for credit 

**** Note:  If original document number (DOCNO) used to requisition the item from DLA is available, this is the DOCNO that should be provided on the SDR reply

Updates subsequent to May 7, 2014 meeting are highlighted in red.

** Note: If no Manager reply is provided within standard response time, DSS will send a follow-up SDR

Attachment, Page 4
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2978 

To amend title 44, United States Code, to reauthorize the National Historical 

Publications and Records Commission, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2019 

Mr. CONNOLLY (for himself, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, 

and Mr. CUMMINGS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 44, United States Code, to reauthorize the 

National Historical Publications and Records Commission, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Historical 

5 Publications and Records Commission Reauthorization 

6 Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2978 IH

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL HISTORICAL 

2 PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION. 

3 (a) COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION.—Section 2501(a) 

4 of title 44, United States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 

6 striking ‘‘15’’ and inserting ‘‘16’’; and 

7 (2) in paragraph (2)— 

8 (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ‘‘; 

9 and’’ and inserting a semicolon; and 

10 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(G) the Council of State Archivists; and’’. 

12 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

13 2504(g)(1) of title 44, United States Code, is amended 

14 to read as follows: 

15 ‘‘(g)(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—For 

16 the purposes specified in this section, there is hereby au17 thorized to be appropriated to the National Historical 

18 Publications and Records Commission $15,000,000 for 

19 each of fiscal years 2020 through 2025.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-15-2008

Watcher v. Pottsville Area

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 04-4253

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Watcher v. Pottsville Area" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1749.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1749
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

Nos. 04-4253 & 04-4271

 

SHIRLEY WATCHER;

CHARLES WATCHER, H/W

v.

POTTSVILLE AREA EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.;

GARRY THOMAS LAUBACH

Shirley Watcher; Charles Watcher,

 Appellants in 04-4253

Pottsville Area Emergency Medical Service, Inc.,

 Appellant in 04-4271

——————————

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 00-cv-01123)

District Court: Hon. A. Richard Caputo

——————————

Before: SCIRICA, McKEE, and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges

 

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

 

At the direction of the Court, the opinion filed September 18, 2007 is amended. 

Insofar as an error exists in the numbering sequence of the sections of the opinion, the

section formerly designated I. 4 shall be redesignated as I. 3; the section formerly

designated as III shall be redesignated as II; and the section formerly designated as IV

shall be redesignated as III.
2

The second to the last sentence in the first full paragraph on page 5 is amended as

follows:

Even though the work environment she left was found to be “hostile” within

the meaning of Title VII, the jury quite properly could have concluded that

she was terminated because she was absent from work and failed to notify

anyone of her absence, not because of age bias. 

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron

Clerk

Dated: 15 January 2008

/cc:
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3049 

To ensure public disclosure of nutrition standards compliance by school food 

authorities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 30, 2019 

Ms. SCHRIER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To ensure public disclosure of nutrition standards compliance 

by school food authorities, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘School Nutrition 

5 Transparency for Healthy Kids Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF COMPLIANCE. 

7 Section 22(c) of the Richard B. Russell National 

8 School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769c) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

10 end; 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3049 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at 

2 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(3) beginning not later than 1 year after the 

5 date of the enactment of this paragraph, and at 

6 least annually thereafter, publish on the website of 

7 the Department of Agriculture data on the compli8 ance of school food authorities with respect to the 

9 nutritional requirements under section 9(f), includ10 ing— 

11 ‘‘(A) the number of school food authorities 

12 in compliance with such requirements, 

13 disaggregated by State; 

14 ‘‘(B) the total number of school food au15 thorities in each State; and 

16 ‘‘(C) the percentage of school food authori17 ties in compliance with such requirements, 

18 disaggregated by State.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00742

- CV

Trial court case number: 17

- CV

- 0910

Trial court: 10th District Court o f Ga lveston County

R elator ha s filed a m otion to stay the trial court proceedings p ending r esolution of

its p etition for w rit of m andamus

. The motion is granted

. The proceedings in Katherine

Hunter v. Texas Farm Bureau M ut. Ins. Co.

, No. 17

- CV

- 0910 , in th e 1 0 th District Court

of Galveston C ounty, Texas, are stayed. The stay is effective until disposition of relator ’ s

petition for writ of mandamus or further order of this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: December 3, 2019
##### 



(ECC LETTERHEAD)

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350),
the undersigned, Robert L. Collins, Chief Executive Officer of ECC
International Corp., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby
certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2003 of the Company
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ Robert L. Collins  
| |  |                        
| |  | Robert L. Collins      
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| |  | September 9, 2003      

Page 55 of 56
# C_2016343EN.01000401.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un KO’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ v Konkurences padome, and Konkurences padome v SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’

(Case C-542/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101(1) TFEU - Purely internal situation - Application of analogous national rules - Jurisdiction of the Court - Concerted practice - Liability of an undertaking for the acts of a service provider - Conditions))

(2016/C 343/05)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākā Tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un KO’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, Konkurences padome

Appellants:

Respondents: Konkurences padome, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’

Respondents:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking may, in principle, be held liable for a concerted practice on account of the acts of an independent service provider supplying it with services only if one of the following conditions is met:

| — | the service provider was in fact acting under the direction or control of the undertaking concerned, or |
| --- | --- |

—

the service provider was in fact acting under the direction or control of the undertaking concerned, or

| — | that undertaking was aware of the anti-competitive objectives pursued by its competitors and the service provider and intended to contribute to them by its own conduct, or |
| --- | --- |

—

that undertaking was aware of the anti-competitive objectives pursued by its competitors and the service provider and intended to contribute to them by its own conduct, or

| — | that undertaking could reasonably have foreseen the anti-competitive acts of its competitors and the service provider and was prepared to accept the risk which they entailed. |
| --- | --- |

—

that undertaking could reasonably have foreseen the anti-competitive acts of its competitors and the service provider and was prepared to accept the risk which they entailed.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 16.12.2015.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3074 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3074

 To amend the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 to extend the 
 Medicaid demonstration programs to improve access to community mental 
                            health services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 3, 2019

  Mr. Walden introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 to extend the 
 Medicaid demonstration programs to improve access to community mental 
                            health services.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Continuing Access to Mental and 
Behavioral Health Care Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEMONSTRATION 
              PROGRAM.

    Section 223(d)(3) of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 
(42 U.S.C. 1396a note) is amended by striking ``for 2 years or through 
June 30, 2019,'' and inserting ``for 4 years or through June 30, 
2021,''.
                                 <all>
```
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1584

_____________________________

AIRRECK WHITE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Wakulla County.

James O. Shelfer, Judge.

October 11, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, C.J., and B.L. THOMAS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Airreck White, pro se, Appellant.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-K as
of December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000033565
<NAME> ESSEX GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,832
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  197,320
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,583
<INVENTORY>                                    233,020
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               441,666
<PP&E>                                         424,197
<DEPRECIATION>                                 136,365
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 862,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          194,923
<BONDS>                                        316,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     235,164
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   862,666
<SALES>                                      1,701,329
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,701,329
<CGS>                                        1,370,232
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,370,232
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,711
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                139,798
<INCOME-TAX>                                    55,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             84,098
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    84,098
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>